SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Raj) 1033

[Citation : RLW 2007(2) RJ 919 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Mod Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. (Rafiq, J.)
HON'BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Mod Singh & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 486 of 1982, decided on 27.07.2007

Advocates Appeared
K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Mehrishi, for Petitioner;
B.L. Awasthi, Addl. Government Advocate, for State

Headnote:Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, Secs. 4(1), 10 & 11; Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973, Rule 4-A, 5 — Calculation of ceiling area in Chambal Command Area — Intensity of irrigation — Whether the state can proceed to decide the question by taking overall average intensity of the irrigated land in Chambal Command Area? — Held — It cannot be said that intensity of irrigation for entire land within the Chambal Command Area would be 78% regardless of the fact its level may vary from the level of irrigating canal which at certain places may not match the level of land — No general presumption can be raised that all lands falling within the Area would be Nahari or irrigated. (Paras 14 to 16)

       Writ petition allowed.

       .

Honble RAFIQ, J.—The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 1.12.1979 passed by Authorised Officer, Kota whereby part of their grievances were remedied under the provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short - the Act of 1973) and the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules of 1973 (for short-the Rules of 1973). The petitioners have also challenged the subsequent judgment dated 31.5.1979 passed by Additional Collector, Kota and that of the Board of Revenue dated 2.9.1981 whereby their successive appeals against the judgment of the Authorised Officer, Kota were dismissed. A consequential declaration has been prayed for that the lands of the petitioners khatedari are not liable to be acquired under the Act of 1973 and that the petitioners are entitled to get the intensity of the irrigation worked out field wise in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1973 and that the unirrigated lands of the petitioners should not be treated as irrigated lands and ceiling area of the petitioners for the purpose of Section 4(1)(d) of the Act of 1973 should be accordingly worked out by not taking the intensity of the irrigation for the Command Area as a whole.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioners father Birdhi Lal inherited 600 bighas and 13 biswas of the agricultural land from his father Bal Kishan. This land was situated in Village Bhonra, Tehsil Digod, District Kota and was mutated in the name of Birdhi Lal as the Manager and Karta of the Joint Hindu Family after the death of his father. Proceedings for partition of the lands were initiated at the instance of the members of the Joint Hindu Family, pursuant to which a decree for divison of holdings was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota on 21.8.1957 and separate area of land fell into the share of nine different members of the family, out of which 82 bighas and 4 biswas came to the share of Birdhi Lal and 30 bighas and 3 biswas of land was also left out in the sole khatedari of Birdhi Lal. After the aforesaid judgment and decree, total land held by him was 112 bighas and 7 biswas. In the meantime, the Act of 1973 passed by the State Legislature received the assent of the President on 28/05/1973 and was published in the Gazette on 29.3.1973. It was brought into force from 1/01/1973 in the whole of the State of Rajasthan except the area of Rajasthan Canal Project where it came into force w.e.f. 6th of April, 1973 and thereafter Rules of 1973 were framed. Section 10 of the Act of 1973 provided that every person who, on the date of commencement of the said Act, was holding land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him, was required within 120 days from the date of commencement of the said Act to furnish to the Authorised Officer, within whose jurisdiction the holding of such person or the major part thereof was situated, a return in such form and containing such particulars as were prescribed. Section 11(1) of the Act of 1973 empowers the Authorised Officer to require such person, who holds land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him, but who has failed to furnish the return under Section 10 or furnish particulars as the case may be, within the time specified in the notice or within such further time, not exceeding 30 days as the Autborised Officer may, in his discretion, allow. Sub-section 2 of Section 11 of the Act of 1973 further empowers the Authorised Officer to obtain necessary information in case of a person who fails to furnish the return or the additional particulars, as the case may be, in such manner as he thinks fit either by himself or through any other agency.

3. The Authorised Officer, Kota upon receiving report of the Patwari of Village Dhaba served notices on the petitioners and their mother Smt. Dhapu Bai and their brother Vikram Singh under Section 11 of the Act of 1973 requiring them to furnish the returns of their holdings and the particulars of their families. The

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top